From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Jun 28 15:45:15 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) id e5SEhlo22618
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:43:47 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (root@daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5SEhke22610
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:43:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e5SEhjR21801
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:43:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: from damson.open.ac.uk by venus with SMTP Local (Mailer 3.01);
          Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:43:44 +0100
Received: from 173049.open.ac.uk by damson.open.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09749;
          Wed, 28 Jun 00 15:43:43 BST
Message-Id: <10006281443.AA09749@damson.open.ac.uk>
From: Peter Connor <p.m.connor@open.ac.uk>
To: britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 15:43:42 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Nationals Tourny Seedings
In-Reply-To: <3959FBBA.E68FA79D@srv1.mech.ed.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Tim, I think you've identified the wrong problem, not everyone at 
nationals can win, there are 2 divisions, the top 8 and the bottom 8, 
each can only win their own division, the top 8 (in theory) are those 
teams which score the most ranking points from the 4 tour events, 
the bottom 8 are those that came in 9-16 on cumulative tour points. 
There are no cross overs between these divisions.  So if Ro-Sham 
are ranked (eg) 14th after the tour the best they can end up at 
nationals is 9th (ie 1st in the second division).
To clarify, the problem with Catch is whether they will have 1) 
enough points to make it to the top 8 and if not should they be let 
in any way 2) whether they would be seeded 8th/4th (whatever) and 
whether this would create a group of death.  You might want to 
suggest a format that would avoid this with as with your 16 team 
format - I make no comment as to whether you'll be ignored again,

Pete
Red (but speaking for myself)

> I know everyone didn't listen to me last time on tourny format
> (including Chris Hughes, who I emailed seperately twice, without
> reply!), but here is a suggestion along similar lines which avoids
> "Pools of Death" and Catch's problem.
> 
> I am assuming that all 16 teams at Nationals will be allowed to win
> Nationals.  Are there objections to this?  I must also declare that my
> team RSB stand to gain, as it provides us with an opportunity to finish
> the season in the top 8 (or win, in our dreams!!!).
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> 1) Everyone is SEEDED!
> 2) If you win you gain the higher seed, if you lose you gain the lower
> seed.  There are no draws.
> 
> Round 1:
> 1v15 , 2v16, 3v13, 4v14 .....
> 
> Round 2:
> 1v7, 2v8, 3v5 , 4v6
> 9v15, 10v16, 11v13, 12v14
> 
> Round 3:
> 1v3, 2v4
> 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, 8v9
> 13v15, 14v16
> 
> At this stage:  There are only 8 teams which have 2 wins and they
> qualify for top 8.  This system means you may lose to one team and still
> qualify.  Note also that this system juggles the seedings, which is what
> the pool games are supposed to do.
> 
> Now have quaters, semis and finals as normal in both 1-8 and 9-16.
> 
> Tim
> Ro-Sham-Bo
> 
> 
>